4 ms·

> That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas. That's a good point on its own, but it's not a response. At no time did I or anyone here in this

by Udo 5y ago

> That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas. That's a good point on its own, but it's not a response. At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person/community who is making claims of being in possession of an exceptionally catastrophic piece of information that by its nature would preclude public scrutiny on ethical grounds.

traverseda 5y ago
I don't think Yudkowsky is making that claim anywhere? >At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. >What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person who is making claims It's honestly really not that clear what you're trying to discuss, certainly you haven't been making a clear statement like that. I don't think anyone is making claims of being in possession of such an infohazard for one thing, and if there were I don't think anyone would be saying you should be deferential towards someone who claimed to have one, sight unseen. I think you're arguing with a bit of a straw man? Like no one is being all "let's be deferential towards Yudkowsky because he has the idea equivalent of a nuke". He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim to have the idea equivalent of a nuke. I assumed you were claiming that info-hazards don't exist because otherwise what exactly are you claiming? Anyway, if that was your point, granted. Let's not be differential towards people who claim to have info-hazards, unless they can go into a room and make someone laugh themselves to death or something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI
- mhb 5y ago
  He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim to have the idea equivalent of a nuke. Well, he isn't willing to reveal how he convinced his opponents to let the AI out of the box.
  - traverseda 5y ago
    Yeah, but his win rate is probably not that much above control.

by Udo 5y ago

traverseda 5y ago

I don't think Yudkowsky is making that claim anywhere? >At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. >What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person who is making claims It's honestly really not that clear what you're trying to discuss, certainly you haven't been making a clear statement like that. I don't think anyone is making claims of being in possession of such an infohazard for one thing, and if there were I don't think anyone would be saying you should be deferential towards someone who claimed to have one, sight unseen. I think you're arguing with a bit of a straw man? Like no one is being all "let's be deferential towards Yudkowsky because he has the idea equivalent of a nuke". He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim to have the idea equivalent of a nuke. I assumed you were claiming that info-hazards don't exist because otherwise what exactly are you claiming? Anyway, if that was your point, granted. Let's not be differential towards people who claim to have info-hazards, unless they can go into a room and make someone laugh themselves to death or something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI

mhb 5y ago
He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim to have the idea equivalent of a nuke. Well, he isn't willing to reveal how he convinced his opponents to let the AI out of the box.
- traverseda 5y ago
  Yeah, but his win rate is probably not that much above control.